I recently stumbled across the theory that the first humans in the Americas were aboriginals from Australia. Apparently there is a cave in an Brazil with archialogical evidence. Read more here: BBC News | Sci/Tech | 'First Americans were Australian'
The trouble is I’m not very good at separating science data from coocoo science. Is this theory given any creedance in credible science?
Recent genetic analysis is pretty definitive that the earliest Americans were of East Asian in origin with a small element of Australasia. Australasian is a broad term which includes Australians, Papuans, Melanesians, and other groups scattered about the South West Pacific region. That is not to be confused with modern day peoples, but people some 15,000- 20,000 years ago who were ancestors of those people we see today.
If I’m understanding the theory correctly, East Asians came over the land bridge and killed the earlier arriving Australasia. So are you saying it’s possible or not? Sorry, not trying to be dense.
It was once thought that the Australasian wave came over first, but now it’s thought that it either came at roughly the same time as the Asian (Siberian) migration or possibly the interbreeding happened before the migrants left Asia. Skull shape data is not as good as accurate as genetic data, and the latest hypothesis I mention is based on genetic data.
It was in the news just a week ago, but for some reason I can’t find the link.
The group of people called Australasians used to cover a much larger (land) area than they do now. I am a bit fuzzy on the exact dates, but much of southeast asia was austalasian in prehistory, and DNA from the Denisovans, a species whose most recent remains was found in Siberia, is found in Melanesians.
What I am trying to say is that “Australasian migration to the Americas” does not neccessarly mean a migration from Australia, it could just as well be another Siberian/East Asian migration.
This is an informative BBC article on the subject - DNA uncovers mystery migration to the Americas - BBC News. Also these:
Science
Nature
Ummm … yeah … BBC … okay … not the best place to get scientific news.
I hunted up the actual scientific publication “Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: Morphological Affinities
of the Earliest Known American” (PDF), and the abstract only mentions Australia once.
So figure if what you’re reading is different from what is published, it’s coocoo [sic]. Telling the tale of some guy boating from Australia to South America will sell antacids, the tale of boating from Easter Island to South America, not so much.
There might be some folks touting the direct route from Australia, but a plausible scenario is Australasians (not from Australia) traveling by boat and hugging the coast up Asia and then over to the Americas.
All the evidence would be underwater right now. It does make sense, this is something humans do generally speaking.
I professed my ignorance in my OP, that’s why asked if someone could help me out.
Poking around on the Net, I found a couple of articles which support this. From here,
.
Here, another article from just two weeks ago points out that skulls which match Australo-Melanesia (which would be similar to aboriginals from Australia) do not share DNA with them but rather with modern Native Americans.
It seems that the documentary in question relied on archeology evidence only and didn’t take into consideration the DNA.
modern Amerindians shares DNA with them. This also counters the argument which
The Australasians explored and settled the entire Pacific island region at least as far east as Easter Island (which is much farther from NZ as from Peru) so why would they not have gone on and found the Americas? It seems entirely plausible to me.
I’ve always wondered about this myself. Why would anyone think to cross over Siberia in hopes it will lead to someplace better? Were they being driving north by something? I could see one or two tribes taking the chance, but thousands of people streaming into North America from Asia over a land bridge? How would they even know a land bridge was there to cross over?
It’s as simple as: “hey, no one is hunting/fishing/gathering in the next fjord/valley over there, let’s go!”. Repeat that every generation or so, and you fill a continent.
Yes, the whole “Clovis first” thing and the “Overkill” hypothesis is now deader than Francisco Franco.
Okay, but wasn’t the climate adverse to migrating that far north back then? I wouldn’t do it today and I know what it’s going to be like…
There is a very interesting theory called the “Beringia Isolation Hypothesis” which suggests that the ancestors of the Native Americans reached the Beringia land area during a warmer spell 30-35 000 years ago, and were subsequently isolated there for 15-20 000 years as the climate cooled and glaciers cut off both Kamtchatka and Alaska.
Beringia is not thought to have been icecovered during this period due to the dry climate thought to prevail.
I have read that at the end of the last Ice Age, about 14 500 years ago, the ice sheets blocking North America were thought to have collapsed quite quickly, within a single lifetime.
The original founder grop of the Native American population may have been no larger than about 70 people, with some later migrations adding to it.
You’re talking about Austronesians (not the indigenous Australians that are under discussion here). Austronesians may have made contact with South Americans a few centuries before Columbus- there’s evidence that sweet potatoes were present in Polynesia around that time and chickens may have traveled the opposite way.
There’s not much difference in climate from one valley to the next. No one needed to have moved very far. The distance is covered over generations, not individuals.
So while the climate might have been harsh, the migration was by people already living in the same climate.
The Polynesian pacific settlement happened very recently, just in the past few thousand years. People have been living in the Americas for much longer than that, at least 20,000 and probably more like 30,000 years.